The First Lady as Scout for Bush’s 2004 Campaign

Two months since his inauguration, the leader of the Free World has yet to set foot in the world’s sixth-largest economy. Today, a Bush does visit Los Angeles--only it’s Laura, the first lady.

Will George W. be far behind? And what’s his plan for winning the hearts of Californians?

There is justification for the president’s early avoidance of California. The focus right now is on getting Democratic senators to sign on to the $1.6-trillion tax cut. I’m guessing that Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein would sooner spend a week on “Temptation Island” with Strom Thurmond than side with the president, so why bother coming here? Besides, the White House has been active behind the scenes, gaining control of the financial operations of the California Republican Party.

Still, there are ways to make inroads into the Golden State without the president’s participation. The Clinton administration did this for eight years, keeping California knee-deep in federal dollars and presidential surrogates. So can Team Bush.

Take California’s energy shortfall. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham struck the wrong chord when he bluntly asserted that California’s situation “will get worse, and blackouts this summer appear inevitable.” Since California has come to expect the personal touch, why not send out an emissary--perhaps Abraham or Environmental Protection Agency chief Christie Whitman--to tour power plants and hear firsthand about construction delays and forced shutdowns?

Similarly, in the aftermath of the school shooting in Santee, the Bush administration could have dispatched Education Secretary Rod Paige to tell Californians that the president not only feels their pain but also wants to triple federal funding for character education to discourage kids from resorting to acts of violence.

Of course, this is moot once the president starts racking up visits--and he will. But will imitating Bill Clinton’s up-close-and-personal courtship of California accomplish Bush’s ultimate purpose, which is to carry the state in 2004? President Bush was a frequent visitor to California during the election, defying media expectations that he’d abandon the state. Yet despite the sweat equity, Bush lost California by slightly less than 1.3 million votes--better than his father did in 1992, worse than Bob Dole in 1996.

How, then, to make up that lost ground? A steady charm offensive would help, but getting over the hump may require something far more dramatic than reading to kids. It could require an idea or an initiative that strikes at the heart of the GOP’s current image problem in California. If the president wants to chip away at the Democratic edge among Latino voters, for example, he could go along with Mexican President Vicente Fox’s appeal for amnesty for the estimated 7 million Mexicans living illegally in the U.S. Or he could team up with Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), who supports legislation making it easier for Mexican immigrants to permanently join family members living in the states.

Like Richard M. Nixon going to China, such a move would rile the Republican base. But it also would change the political equation in California. And change it must. Bush is the first president since Jimmy Carter to win a national election despite losing California. No president has been elected to consecutive terms absent California’s support; Woodrow Wilson lost California once, but won it en route to reelection.

And he didn’t even have Air Force One.